Lawsuit Overview
January 19, 2021 - A second amended complaint was filed.
September 18, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
September 9, 2020 - An investor in shares of LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: LX) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between April 30, 2019 and August 24, 2020.
China based LexinFintech Holdings Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as an online consumer finance platform for young professionals in the People's Republic of China. LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from over 7.59 billion CNY in 2018 to over 10.6 billion CNY in 2019, and that its Net Income increased from over 1.97 billion CNY in 2018 to over 2.29 billion CNY in 2019.
On August 25, 2020, a research report was published on LexinFintech. The report alleged, among other things, that LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. reported unfathomably low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments and that LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. ( engaged in undisclosed related party transactions. Furthermore, according to the report, a review of the Company's web traffic calls into question the Company's purported growth. Shares of LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: LX) $13.09 per share on July 8, 2020, to as low as $7.45 per share on August 31, 2020.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: LX) common shares between April 30, 2019 and August 24, 2020, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between April 30, 2019 and August 24, 2020, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that LexinFintech reported artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments, that the Company’s business model exposes shareholders to enormous losses by prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance sheet loans, that the Company exaggerated its user base, that the Company was facilitating direct peer to peer lending contrary to Chinese law, that the Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions, that the Company lacked adequate internal controls, and that as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.